Mccrary v. Gano
| Decision Date | 24 April 1902 |
| Citation | 41 S.E. 580,115 Ga. 295 |
| Parties | McCRARY v. GANO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
VERDICT—AMENDMENT. A judge has no power to amend a verdict after the same has been returned and the jurors have dispersed. This is none the less true in a case wherein the court had directed what the verdict should be, and the amendment merely supplied a particular finding covered by the direction, but which had been omitted from the verdict, and in no event should the court undertake to amend a verdict which had been so directed at the instance of a party whose attorney himself prepared the verdict which was actually returned. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Crawford county; W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.
Action by F. W. Gano against Jerry McCrary. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
M. G. Bayne and W. J. Wallace, for plaintiff in error.
E. L. Bryan, for defendant in error.
On the trial of this case, the same being an action upon promissory notes, the court "directed a verdict for the plaintiff for principal, interest, and attorney's fees." The plaintiff's attorney then prepared, and the foreman of the jury signed, a verdict finding for the plaintiff stated amounts as principal and attorney's fees. There was, however, in this verdict no finding as to interest After the jurors had dispersed, the plaintiff's attorney called the court's attention "to having left out the interest in the verdict, which was a matter of calculation from the notes, and the court instructed him to insert the interest in the verdict, '' which was done. To this, and this alone, the defendant excepted.
The court erred in thus amending the verdict After the dispersal of the jury, the judge had no power either to add to or take from their finding. It is true that under the direction given to the jury they were instructed to find interest in favor of the plaintiff, but their verdict did not embrace such a finding, and the court was without authority to make any finding for them. Suppose, in a given case, the verdict of a jury should be in all respects palpably contrary to the charge of the court. It certainly would not be contended that the judge would have the power to correct the error of the jury in disregarding the instructions of the court by discarding the verdict returned and substituting another in its place. Plainly, in such a case, the remedy would be to set aside the verdict and have the ease tried over. It makes no difference in principle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Firemen's Ins. Co v. Oliver
...be a motion for a new trial when there is an actual verdict." Hyfield v. Sims, 87 Ga. 280, 282, 13 S. E. 554, 555; and see McCrary v. Gano, 115 Ga. 295, 41 S. E. 580. In view of the final adjudication that the petition to set aside the verdict and judgment was in effect a motion for a new t......
-
Allen v. Allen
...of the jury in disregarding the instructions of the court by discarding the verdict returned and substituting another in its place.' In the Gano case, the verdict was a general one. In the Wright there were no special findings in response to questions submitted by the judge to the jury. In ......
-
W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. Hannon
... ... See ... also: Butte Electric Ry. Co. v. Mathews et al, 34 ... Mont. 487, 87 P. 460; McCrary v. Cano, 115 Ga. 295, ... 41 S.E. 580; Hallberg v. Brosseau, 64 Ill.App. 520; ... Southern Kan. Ry. Co. et al. v. Showalter, 57 Kan ... 681, 47 ... ...
-
Harlan v. Ellis
...verdict in matter of substance. Wood v. McGuire's Children, 17 Ga. 361(4), 63 Am.Dec. 246; Shelton v. O'Brien, 76 Ga. 820; McCrary v. Gano, 115 Ga. 295, 41 S.E. 580; Brooke v. Lowry National Bank, 141 Ga. 493(6), S.E. 223; Davis v. Wright, 194 Ga. 1(4), 21 S.E.2d 88. The trial court erred i......